Hayden Christensen has as much a place in that scene as Ewan McGregor. And as much as I loved Ewan McGregor in the prequels, he doens't belong in the originals either.

Sebastian Shaw is the Anakin we saw redeemed, reuniting with his long-lost son, and dying. He's the one Luke met face to face. He certainly should be the one who gets a parting glance at his children getting on with their lives. If you can't recognize him as Anakin in the ghost scene, you must not have been watching the Death Scene.

Hayden's ghost is as much a figment, as the young Anakin never dressed in those particular robes. And he's a reminder that "the good man who was your father" never actually appeared in the prequels, unless you mean Jake Lloyd, who never played the part as a man in the first place.

In ROTS he risks his life to rescue his two best friends, loves his wife too much to let her go, and is dying to get back to the front lines so he can end an intergalactic war.

He was a pretty good guy. I'm sure you would also kill someone who murdered your mother or started a war that ravaged your friends, family and country. Loss of control doesn't make you a bad person.

Exactly.

And so the bar for "good person" is "killed Sidious"? Really? I guess everyone in the prequels were pretty much ***holes then. Even if the bar is "tried to kill Sidious," that makes everyone in the prequels "bad" except Mace. Agen Kolar and Saesee Tinn.

And no, Anakin did not commit cold-blooded first-degree murder until he killed Dooku, and even then, the "first-degree" part is debatable.

I just want to know how Anakin was able to learn of that particular feat (becoming One with the Force after death) when this knowledge, iirc, was limited only to the Jedi Masters. Anakin was never a Master. Could it be that when he invaded the Temple after killing off the Jedi, that he may have stolen the archives in the library where this information was stored? If so then perhaps that would make sense. But if he learned it as a young man after he turned evil, how would it be that his younger self be considered the ghost when this feat required one to be "good during the time of death" or am I missing something?

on that note, I ask myself, what was the last noble thing Anakin did?--> He turned on the Sith from killing his son....and ended the Sith Lord sacrificing himself--fulfilling the prophecy and bringing balance to the Force. Wasn't this the main point of the prophecy Qui Gonn mentioned regarding Ani's revelation as "The Chosen One" in this whole saga? And at what point in Anakin's life did this fulfilled prophecy take place? When he was no longer the younger version. IMO, that would only seem the most logical (in a SW Universe sense) thing that should occur when he finally reunites with Yoda and Obi Wan on the other side. Granted, I will give credit that he did do good things when he was younger: cared for his wife, loved his mother, saved Palpatine, and Obi Wan on board Grievous's ship, etc...But I can't help that we're viewing/ interpreting these traits as if he's a "regular Joe" as a justification for the ghost when he was a Jedi Knight who followed a Code and was destined to end the Sith. There were just some things that he did throughout AOTC that conflicted with this thus undermining that justification for becoming One with the Force: i.e. 1) Argued with his Master (AOTC in Padme's apartment) and wanted to take blatant action immediately instead of gathering facts before making a move (kind of similar to Revan and Malak's fall). 2) His need for revenge for the murder of his mother--I know some will say this should be negated cause he loved his mother which I completely understand--but if we're talking about a character who's destiny was suppose to bring order to the galaxy, it just doesn't quite sit that his action to take revenge on a village, who are not Sith, justifies the reason for his ghost to appear. Adi Mundi may have forseen some kind of event like this when he sensed he was too attached to his mother which was why he was so concerned admitting Ani into the Order in TPM. 3) One other thing I'd point out before closing my argument would be his attachment to Padme. One would think that if he was considered to be greater than Yoda because of his midichlorian count, that he'd easily learn to control and display the first tenant of the Jedi Code: There is no emotion, There is Peace. But we never see him display this throughout ep2 or 3. At all. I know some will say what does the Jedi Code have to do with him being good or bad? It means everything. The Jedi have it for a reason. They don't just admit anyone regardless of their Force Sensitivity unless that being is in control of his emotions so he isn't tempted by the dark side of the Force. The fact that they admit him anyway to the Council's dismay and discretion says a lot. Young Anakin was a conflicted character who, to him, was doing the right things (helping people he loved and trying to save the Republic) but was tormented by the means in how to acquire & deliver that (wanting to join the Order, to the Council's defiance, so he can help better save his mother, tempted by the power to bring one from the dead after premonitions of his wife dying and fearing this will happen after he had the same dream of his mother and failing to save her, getting angry at the Council for not upgrading him as a Master--(this when Adi Mundi himself was part of the Council but not a Master..) Again, these sort of things reveal that he simply wasn't "completely good" throughout the Prequels to justify that he should appear as a ghost. As I've said, his last moments was that he ended the Sith--a faction in the Force that undermines everyone for the sake of power-- while he, too, was a Sith, but turned away from it, completely in the end. And this occurred not when he was the younger version, but when he was in his last stage in life. I think that deserves some logical recognition (Luke sees him unmasked) and justification (ends the Sith bringing balance to the Force) for the elder ghost to appear and stand, i mean float, among the two noble Jedi on Endor.

In ROTS he risks his life to rescue his two best friends, loves his wife too much to let her go, and is dying to get back to the front lines so he can end an intergalactic war.

He was a pretty good guy. I'm sure you would also kill someone who murdered your mother or started a war that ravaged your friends, family and country. Loss of control doesn't make you a bad person.

Exactly.

And so the bar for "good person" is "killed Sidious"? Really? I guess everyone in the prequels were pretty much ***holes then. Even if the bar is "tried to kill Sidious," that makes everyone in the prequels "bad" except Mace. Agen Kolar and Saesee Tinn.

With all due respect anakinfan, I was referring to The Supreme Chancellor's posts - which I've bolded/highlighted above - where he says:

"I'm sure you would also kill someone who murdered your mother or started a war that ravaged your friends, family and country. Loss of control doesn't make you a bad person."

I was making a sarcastic remark along the lines of, "oh GOOD thing he killed Sidious in ROTS then - oh. wait".....you know, since he actually DIDN'T kill Sidious until some 20 years later. But my point was that Supreme Chancellor was (inadvertently) making an excellent argument for Anakin killing Sidious in EP III. Sidious was the responsible party for all of the negative things mentioned in Supreme Chancellor's above post, and more importantly, Anakin knew this to be the case , by the time he was 'knighted' in the Chancellor's office.

Now, as far as the ethical/moral "bar" goes, my main point was that the bar was being set (artificially) low in order to call Anakin "good" in AOTC/ROTS, thus reducing Obi-Wan's words about Anakin from the OT to 'lowest common denominator' levels of relevance.

And no, Anakin did not commit cold-blooded first-degree murder until he killed Dooku, and even then, the "first-degree" part is debatable.

Well, if you know me, you know that I believe strongly that were those actions committed by anyone other than Anakin, they wouldn't be rationalized in such a manner. By any reasonable ethical standard, Anakin committed murder in those two cases, though you may disagree.

Well, if you know me, you know that I believe strongly that were those actions committed by anyone other than Anakin, they wouldn't be rationalized in such a manner. By any reasonable ethical standard, Anakin committed murder in those two cases, though you may disagree.

Well, if you know me, you'll know I believe two things: one, these issues are never as simple and black-and-white as "there's a dead body, he's a murderer, case closed" with no distinction given whatsoever for the circumstances. If it were that simple, there would be no need for the different degrees of murder charges in our justice system. I also believe in not sitting judgment on people without walking a mile in their moccasins, and I think I can feel pretty sure that none of us have ever been enslaved, had our mothers die in our arms after being tortured to death, or had the leader of the Republic order us to murder a warrior on the opposing side.

I'm not sure what I would do in either if those situations and I certainly hope that I never have to find out.

And yes, anyone other than Anakin would be judged differently--by those on your side of the argument. I see this every time the Tusken slaughter is mentioned and there is no condemnation whatsoever and plenty of excuses for the kidnappers, torturers abd first-degree murderers but all the condemnation one can muster for Anakin.

But if you want to insult the people who disagree with you by insinuating tgat they do not have "reasonable ethical standards," there will be no common ground reached in this discussion anyway.

Now, as far as the ethical/moral "bar" goes, my main point was that the bar was being set (artificially) low in order to call Anakin "good" in AOTC/ROTS, thus reducing Obi-Wan's words about Anakin from the OT to 'lowest common denominator' levels of relevance.

Shouldn't that be "Obi-Wan's word about Anakin from the OT"? You don't need to pluralize it because he only called Anakin "good" in one instance.

Now, as far as the ethical/moral "bar" goes, my main point was that the bar was being set (artificially) low in order to call Anakin "good" in AOTC/ROTS, thus reducing Obi-Wan's words about Anakin from the OT to 'lowest common denominator' levels of relevance.

Shouldn't that be "Obi-Wan's word about Anakin from the OT"? You don't need to pluralize it because he only called Anakin "good" in one instance.